patch_many

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that this is a partial (PATCH-style) mutation; it says nothing about required permissions, whether the batch is atomic, what happens on partial failure, or the array semantics of the payload. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is dominated by a boilerplate recipe-CRUD preamble and a long keyword tail of near-duplicate synonyms. The single useful clause ('Partially update recipe') competes with low-value filler, so signal is diluted and the batch nature is not front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a batch mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. It omits the batch semantics, the shape of the body array, and any failure or permission behavior an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one parameter ('body') with an array of Recipe-Input, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does not. It never explains that body is a list of recipe objects, what identifies each recipe, or which fields are patchable, leaving the payload entirely opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('partially update') and resource ('recipe') plus the endpoint PATCH /api/recipes, so the core purpose is legible. However it describes a singular 'recipe' while the name implies a batch operation and the body is an array, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling patch_one. The keyword dump (patch, update, edit, modify, change, write) adds noise rather than precision.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The keyword list contains synonyms like 'update recipe' and 'edit recipe' but these are search terms, not routing instructions, and it never tells the agent to prefer patch_one for a single recipe.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.